Members Dee41 Posted November 14, 2013 Members Share Posted November 14, 2013 Reading the whole the document I'm not seeing anything that amounts to the judgement they're asking for. 100 million plus an extension of the licensing agreement plus the deferment of fees till god knows when Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ellabelle Posted November 14, 2013 Members Share Posted November 14, 2013 I don't think they get that much either, but it's a starting point for settlement negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted November 14, 2013 Members Share Posted November 14, 2013 Yeah, I don't know why people are fixating on the amount. That's how lawsuits work: you ask for the moon and the stars then let yourself get talked down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DramatistDreamer Posted November 14, 2013 Members Share Posted November 14, 2013 True. Corporate Law 101. Heck even in divorce settlements these days, this is an oft used tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted November 15, 2013 Members Share Posted November 15, 2013 Don't cases like this usually aim for too much money? They don't expect to get that much (that's going from my very limited knowledge on such subjects) but they always overshoot. As for the comment about Crystal Chappell sustaining a web show... Vee said it best. Besides she has what, how many episodes a year (I can't be bothered to look) and it looks AWFUL. Oh I shoulda read this whole thread first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted November 15, 2013 Members Share Posted November 15, 2013 Venice is made for $25, some cigarettes and a 40 of Grey Goose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SFK Posted November 15, 2013 Members Share Posted November 15, 2013 Wow. A season of Venice or a Saturday night with SFK. The choice is yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NothinButAttitude Posted November 15, 2013 Members Share Posted November 15, 2013 All of this over sh*tty Starr, drab ass John, and rapist Todd. *sighs* PP is stupid. I've said this before and I'll say it again--for every Todd there was a Brad Vernon. For every Starr there was a young ingenue character with ties to the Buchanan clan. For every John there was an Ed Hall, Rafe Garretson, etc. OLTL had 40 years of history and characters to pull from instead of putting everything on these three characters. They are easily replaceable and were worn about by the time of the original finale. PP needs to build a bridge and get over it. Those three actors and their characters weren't that important. Putting too many eggs in one basket. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ER Tosh Posted November 15, 2013 Members Share Posted November 15, 2013 I hope that we will now call the time period where the OLTL characters were on GH as " The Megasoap!!!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cassadine1991 Posted November 15, 2013 Author Members Share Posted November 15, 2013 it was way more than those three characters/actors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NothinButAttitude Posted November 15, 2013 Members Share Posted November 15, 2013 But PP not acquiring those actors services is the MAIN reason they're really suing. ABC pulled a fast one and PP is pissed. IMO, it's not that serious. All three characters could've been recast. Cole & Hope could've brought back with Tea's baby. The suit is stupid altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted November 15, 2013 Members Share Posted November 15, 2013 No, the real reason they're suing is because they need money. That said, why should they have been expected to recast Todd Manning, after regaining the popular original actor who played the role for a decade? Why should they have been expected to recast two other key roles? Just because GH had them? Why should they have been expected to let the various alleged liberties with story and character development like the baby, Cole and Hope, etc. slide if they were in violation of the agreement? Everyone has a ready-made answer for that in terms of "how soaps work," which is fine and true, but no one can seem to answer it in terms of the legal agreement. "GH did it and if GH does it that makes it okay" isn't a viable answer in that context. There's fan support and then there's the law. If ABC violated that agreement they were wrong, plain and simple. Even today we have idiots online whining that Tristan Rogers is a dick to take another job when he's not on contract at GH, just because Ron Carlivati needs him to make the story work on GH. But they're the same people saying OLTL didn't need several lead characters or actors to make a show or a story on that show, just because Ron needed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chris B Posted November 15, 2013 Members Share Posted November 15, 2013 I wonder how these shows will fair at the Emmys. We all know both could merit a Best Show nod and MANY of the actors deserve nominations, but I wonder if they'll get blacklisted. Debbi Morgan, Kelly Missel and so many others did really strong work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cassadine1991 Posted November 15, 2013 Author Members Share Posted November 15, 2013 if the actors get blacklisted over something beyond their control, that's low even for the Academy or whoever is in charge with the Emmy process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted November 15, 2013 Members Share Posted November 15, 2013 They'll be blacklisted. That's the way what's left of the industry works now. IMO either Debbi or Kelley Missal is the Best Actress of the year - or Young Actress or whatever the bullshit title is. Brooke Newton deserves a nod for how Colby Chandler became multifaceted in a very quick timeframe. Jill Larson deserves a shot, so does Eden Riegel, Eric Nelsen, Vincent Irizarry, Darnell. And I thought Erika Slezak and Jerry verDorn did incredible work on OLTL, and that Melissa Archer, Robert Gorrie, Denyse Tontz, and yes, FL and KDP deserve nods as well. Everyone was good, really, except a very few. They'll be ignored, though. The only way they can't be ignored is if these shows were to somehow return and run again. And stay running. And AMC was the best "Best Show" in several years. But that will be ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.